"1. I do understand why people are saying they are boycotting tencent's investments, and they have every right to do that. but it seems they are just saying it and not following through. I will concede that the source of tencent money may be immoral, i just don't see what it has to do with this discussion."
This was because your assumption in your original post was based on people boycotting Tencent merely on the fact that they are a large financial supporter of Epic Games and other gaming corporations.
Here is your post:
"all the people calling the epic games store "Tencent-Epic Marketplace", as if being being owned Tencent is going to destroy everything, need to be reminded about how Riot games has been owned by Tencent since forever, and judging by the success of league of legends (for its devs and its players), i don't think anyone has anything to worry about."
My point was that people have other reasons to be boycotting Tencent outside of the properties they've invested in. My point confers with your original post.
@Kh1ndjal said:
"2. Blizzard is not being punished by its customers. it's being punished for its bad game design and bad business decisions (and frankly, shitty public relations). Yes, blizzard is going down, no it's not because of boycotts. if there had been a boycott it would have happened at the time of merger and not a decade later. bad products will fail and that's self-inflicted, not a punishment from consumers."
I literally linked 2 articles that correlated the drop of Activsion-Blizzard stocks from 2015-2018, and why it fell again by 10% as recently as May 2019, to it's user base.
I also linked 2 articles about creatives in seniors positions leaving their positions at Blizzard due to low morale after the negative user reaction from Diablo Immortal.
Based on your post, customers can't boycott Blizzard based on bad game design, bad business, and bad PR.
"Blizzard is not being punished by its customers. it's being punished for its bad game design and bad business decisions (and frankly, shitty public relations)."
When the vast majority of boycotts in the video game are based on bad game design, bad business, or bad PR.
People are boycotting Diablo Immortal because of its game design. It's a re-skinned free-to-play mobile-only game, that was unveiled during BlizzCon 2018. A convention where you had to pay at least $200 USD to get in, where the audience are mostly gaming enthusiasts who play on PC or consoles.
The Blizzard response was the infamous "Don't you guys have phones?". Here is the incident if you're not familiar with it:
A case of bad PR. Which was another reason users boycotted Blizzard.
A large portion of users didn't boycott a merger because no one knew what the outcome of the merger was. Most users won't boycott a merger because it was too early to tell if it would have a negative or positive effect.
It takes time to see the full influence of a merger, especially given Blizzard's development time. That's why we're seeing tangible declines from Blizzard right now.
There are numerous accounts of Blizzard performing less-than-expected due to consumers lowering their investing in Blizzard products and marketing.
Your argument in trying to disassociate consumer disinterest from bad game design, bad business, and bad PR from Blizzard is adopting a strawman tactic that has no merit.
It's consumers that deem whether a game's design is bad or not. And they react with not engaging with that product, or reward it buy purchasing it and praising it.
Blizzard doesn't intentionally set out to make a game with bad game design. Developers don't get the final judgment on whether a game has good or bad game design. Consumers do.
@Kh1ndjal said:
"3. if consumers are treated unfairly, that could be case against epic taken to the courts by gamers or by the FTC (which is a consumer protection agency). If publishers are making more money without harming consumers, then no one really has anything to complain about."
If you think that the FTC can litigate merely on something being unfair, then you don't have a great understand of how the FTC works.
The FTC only enforces laws, they don't enforce fairness.
Now, some legislation was created to try to create and maintain fairness. But the FTC cannot take something to court based solely on the fact that it's unfair. The FTC only brings something to court when it's illegal.
Companies can harm consumers and/or markets are much as they want, as long as their tactics are legal.
For example, take the net neutrality issue that the FCC overturned a few years ago in the United States.
The FCC allows Internet service providers to throttle different kinds of Internet traffic with prejudice, as long as the ISPs make that kind of service known to the consumers.
Are consumers getting a bad deal? Yes.
Did the company let you know about the bad deal beforehand? Yes.
Does that make it illegal? No.
The FCC will only forward cases to the FTC when consumers are being mislead or misadvertised.
The FTC only handles cases of legality, not fairness.
From your original post, Epic Games can be as "evil" or as "ruthless" as they want to be. But what they're doing is completely legal.
Epic Games are wealthy enough to have a dedicated legal department to finely look over every move Epic makes before Epic makes them. Epic has too much net-worth to try to do something blatantly illegal.
But are Epic Games doing something blatantly shady? Of course.
@Kh1ndjal said:
""And why would publishers re-invest?" This is your worst argument. Valve is a private company sitting on billions of dollars whose co-founder is one of the richest men in the world (whose wealth can't be estimated easily because valve is a private company). Valve is the epitome of not re-investing. If this argument can be levied against anyone, it's valve, which reaps billions in profit from their market position (as a storefront with a handful of in-house games) without having to re-invest."
Your argument that Valve being a non-publicly traded company with a CEO with a net-worth in the billions equates to Valve not re-investing in their properties makes no logical sense.
You know what else is a non-publicly traded company with a CEO with a net-worth of billions of dollars? Epic Games.
There are numerous non-publicly traded companies with CEOs in the billions-worth, and those companies re-invest back into their ventures.
Where does it show that if a company is a private company with a wealthy CEO equates to the company not re-investing based on that fact?
Your statement also shows that you're not following Valve closely at all, or that you're selectively ignoring what they do.
Valve still has development teams working on games as far back as Half-Life 1, their first game from 1998. Valve continuously updates HL1 and their other old games:
Valve also continuously adds free content to Team Fortress 2, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, and Dota 2.
Valve has invested millions of dollars into Linux support via Proton. Proton makes Windows-only games without Linux support run natively in Linux.
In fact, Unbuntu (a popular Linux distribution) recently announced that it's dropping support for 32-bit. Yet Valve has pledged that Steam will support 32-bit Linux until at least the year 2025:
Valve is also investing in providing multiplayer support for Proton. Bringing native multiplayer to Linux for Windows-only game is a massive undertaking:
Valve is the biggest corporation that continues to re-invest into Linux, something that Epic Games has abandoned. The Epic Games Launcher/Store app doesn't run on Linux, and Tim Sweeney said they won't support Linux:
And none of this work is proprietary or exclusive. Linux is a open-source platform that anybody can freely use without charge.
Valve is also on the forefront of VR development, and continues to re-invest heavily into VR, something they took at risk on at a stage of its infancy with the HTC Vive.
After the HTC Vive, Valve has released another headset with the best price-to-performance ratio:
"We don't think exclusives are a good idea for customers or developers.
There's a separate issue which is risk. On any given project, you need to think about how much risk to take on. There are a lot of different forms of risk - financial risk, design risk, schedule risk, organizational risk, IP risk, etc... A lot of the interesting VR work is being done by new developers. That's a triple-risk whammy - a new developer creating new mechanics on a new platform. We're in a much better position to absorb financial risk than a new VR developer, so we are happy to offset that giving developers development funds (essentially pre-paid Steam revenue). However, there are not strings attached to those funds. They can develop for the Rift of PlayStation VR or whatever the developer thinks are the right target VR systems. Our hope is that by providing that funding that developers will be less likely to take on deals that require them to be exclusive.
Make sense?"
Just because you don't pay attention to, or use the things that Valve re-invests in, doesn't mean that Valve isn't re-investing in those things.
@Kh1ndjal said:
"I agree with much of what you're saying; epic has used shady tactics to secure exclusives, and i will reiterate that gamers have every right to not use the epic store. I just don't think that in the long run gamers will be harmed, or that they can walk the walk."
It's too early to tell what the outcome of boycotting the Epic Games Store will look like.
But here is a recent example of gamers following-through with a boycott, and it having far-reaching effects.
When Star Wars: Battlefront 2 came out, and gamers found that they could only unlock their favorite characters through agonizingly long grinds from random loot boxes, there was a major boycott.
The boycott was severe enough that it resulted in Battlefront 2 not meeting sales expectations:
This boycott from gamers is only a little bit over a year old. But it took about a year to actually see its outcome.
So yes, gamers can successfully boycott something with far-reaching results.
It's too early to tell how it will pan out for the Epic Games Store exclusivity boycotts. So it can't be dismissed as a failure or confirmed as a success yet.
"He said scrapped. Delaying something is not scraping it. I much rather epic delay any feature until it is fully ready and bug free.
My guess is that at least in terms of achievements and cloud saves you can expect them for Borderlands 3.
Give them time. In the end it's in every gamer best interest that publishers and deelopers earn more money."
Epic Games has removed the timelines for a lot of their planned features.
If something is on an indefinite delay, there's no deadline for consumers to expect those features. And when consumers have no expectations for said features, Epic Games cannot advertise those features.
Where is your evidence that achievements and cloud saves are going to be on the Epic Games Store when Borderlands 3 launches?
I will happily give Epic Games time if they are accurate and honest with their plans.
"If, from what I wrote, you think I only now realised it you're dumb.
I'm not pro or anti Steam/Epic or any other company. This is just stupid. I care none for both. They both sit on billions of dollars. Valve from Steam and Epic from Fortnite and Unreal engine licensing and both don't really need our money anymore.
I am however pro small-medium developers and publishers, which is the majority of the gaming industry. Most of the gaming industry is not as rich as EA or Activision and you can see it from the amount of small studios and publishers who goes out of business or getting bought by the bigger ones. Any means that change the scale a bit and leave more money in their hands is a welcome one for ALL gamers and I don't care who is responsible for this, Be it Epic or Valve or anyone else."
The majority of capital is controlled by large corporate publishers.
What you are referring to is the output of games. Just because there are more $20-$40 USD games, doesn't mean those games are the ones dominating the market.
And it's not the $60 USD triple-A games that are the sole dominators.
It's actually free-to-play games. The ones invested in by large corporations and conglomerates.
Believing that publishers receiving more profits always equates to a better environment for gamers is naive and has been shown to be false by the current state of glitchy or unfinished games. There is no mandate that says publishers need to re-invest their ROIs on their products that have already returned their revenue.
And why would publishers always re-invest into a product that has already given them their ROI? Because it's a double-risk tactic that the majority of the industry doesn't do.
Having to result to ad hominem retorts just shows that you have no evidence to back up your claims, and falling back to insulting me is the only option.
I'm happy to further discuss this, but not with this uncouth behavior.
"@Kh1ndjal: What a load. Steam never forced, encouraged, or demanded exclusivity. Not now and not 15 years ago."
Correct.
When Valve started accepting third party games on Steam, Valve never demanded that those games to be removed from brick and mortar stores.
Consumers still had the choice to freely buy those third party games from Steam or from a physical store.
It was a natural market trend towards digital purchases that caused the decline of physical media for all platforms.
Steam didn't force the market to move towards digital storefronts. Consumers chose to invest in digital goods because it was a better shopping experience.
What Epic Games is doing is not letting natural market trends take place. Epic is forcing the market into 1 storefront: the Epic Games Store. All without letting consumers decide if it's actually a better experience for consumers.
"1. I never said tencent was a good corporation. they might be evil. i just said it won't affect video games and gamers outside of china, because historically, it hasn't."
@RikiGuitarist's original argument was that people aren't boycotting because of what company stakes they own, but boycotting Tencent based on their ethics and behavior as a corporation. Their actions won't affect game design outside of China, but it's their capital that has already massively influenced what is and isn't successful in video games worldwide.
That is the thing that people are boycotting against. And the point you seem to be missing.
@Kh1ndjal said:
"2. Blizzard is successful despite being bought by activision. I feel you negated your own point here. From what you're saying, blizzards merger with activision (in 2008, over 10 years ago), is not hurting sales at all even 10 years later (BFA; release 2018). Battle for Azeroth is the fastest selling wow expansion, despite gamers, literally for an entire decade threatening to boycott blizzard for its merger with activision. Your reasons for blizzard going down are bad games, or bad business decisions, NOT because gamers are punishing the activision-blizzard merger (happened literally over 10 years ago)."
Gamers are punishing Blizzard Activision. The only sector where Blizzard are seeing active growth is in consoles, and that's mostly from Overwatch and Call of Duty.
Activision Blizzard has been seeing an overall decline for quite a while now:
"But if you're wondering why Activision shares immediately dropped on those technically better-than-expected results, look no further than the company's user bases."
Let's not forget the developer fallout from the Diablo Immortal fiasco.
After seeing the fan reaction of the current state of the Diablo franchise, developers on the Diablo team hit a very low point in their morale in the franchise:
So yes, Blizzard did get punished by their user base.
@Kh1ndjal said:
"3. "Epic wants the Epic Games Store to be successful at the death of Steam." That is competition, and competition is good for the market, and good for the consumer. Why should one company care about the existence of another it's in competition with? Epic Games is not a charity, and neither is Steam. Steam killed Retail ruthlessly, not because steam was EVIL, but because retail couldn't compete. Valve won't be killed because they can compete, but competition will force them to make choices that will be better for the consumer."
There's a lot to unpack here. So let's break some things down.
There are two types of competition going on in this situation:
1. Competition for the consumer: Where companies are trying to draw in as many consumers as they can, by providing a better user-experience than other companies.
2. Competition for the publisher: Where companies try to provide the best deals for other companies who publish games and create the most amount of profit. Everything else is secondary.
The current tactics being deployed by Epic Games is good for the market for publishers. There is nothing that dictates that the higher revenue cuts that publishers are getting must go directly into improving the experience or the product that the consumer receives.
Based on what has happened so far, publishers are pocketing that money rather than re-investing it into their products.
And why would publishers re-invest? They already have their guaranteed higher revenue from sales? Why would they take another layer of risk by re-investing into something that might not yield a favorable ROI (return on investment)?
Now, for the consumer — The Epic Games Store objectively does not offer a better experience over Steam.
https://i.imgur.com/SynNfar.jpg
Yes, Epic Games has promised to deliver some of those features. But Epic's promised features are continuously getting delayed on their Trello board.
Epic originally had cloud saves, a shopping cart, optional forums, optional reviews, and achievements done by April 2019.
Epic Games delayed it once already, and tried to bury that delay announcement in a news story about World War Z:
"We also have a delay to announce. A month ago we published the Epic Games store roadmap to share our release plans for new store features. We’ve shifted features targeted for April to May and June as development efforts have focused on supporting online features required for new game launches."
June has come and gone. Yet those features are still nowhere to be seen.
Why should consumers continue to spend money on a storefront based on promises that weren't fulfilled?
It's like pre-ordering a game based on features that aren't in a game, but are planned to be. And we all know how that turns out.
The situations with Steam and retail, with Steam and the Epic Games Store are vastly different.
Steam did not kill retail. The market has been naturally shifting towards digital outside of PC games.
When Valve started accepting third party games on Steam, Valve did not pay those publishers to remove their games from brick and mortar stores.
Consumers still had the option to buy their games on Steam or physically at a store. Then consumers realized the convenience and accessibility of a digital storefront, and consumers chose to spend their money on a better shopping experience. Valve didn't have to pay publishers to force consumers into only 1 choice.
Let's look at the situation with Steam and Epic Games.
Epic Games are removing the consumers' free choice to choose which digital storefront to invest in.
If I wanted my copy of the Outer Worlds (a third party EGS exclusive) to have cloud saves, achievements, in-home streaming and family sharing — features provided for on Steam — I wouldn't have those because the Epic Games Store doesn't provide them.
A lot of those features aren't just on Steam, but on other services such as GOG. I can't give the best consumer experience and product my money, because Epic Games has removed consumer choice.
Yes, Valve and CD Projekt can invest money into buying third party exclusives. But that doesn't make Steam and GOG have more features. Epic is using their capital to remove competition for consumers, not to directly vying for it.
All of these market trends happened freely from consumer choice. Except for one, third party exclusives on the Epic Games Store.
@Kh1ndjal said:
"Overall, it's ironic you are against the Chinese Government because of its control over private companies and interference in the free market, and at the same time, are opposed to the free market competition that is heating up because of epic."
I'm not sure where you inferred Tencent money investments as free market interference.
@RikiGuitarist's comment on Tencent is that their source of capital is vile and immoral, not as a source of interference.
Money is money, no matter the source. But you're trying to tie it in with interfering in a free market. It has no logical follow-through. It's a non-sequitur.
And again, the only entities benefiting from this competition are the publishers. Consumers are not getting a better user-experience from the Epic Games Store due to these actions.
"We also have a delay to announce. A month ago we published the Epic Games store roadmap to share our release plans for new store features. We’ve shifted features targeted for April to May and June as development efforts have focused on supporting online features required for new game launches."
June has come and gone. Yet those features are still nowhere to be seen.
TuxedoCruise's comments